WHY Universal Reconciliation is wrong ?

[DHK]

Anthropormorphic words are worthless if they do not convey some kind of reality found in God. The "arm" of the Lord conveys the idea of "power" just as the "eyes" of the Lord convey awareness. However, these are PHYSICAL attributes where as "anger" "wrath" "hate" are not PHYSICAL attributes but they are MORAL attributes being conveyed.

Nevertheless they describe an aspect of God's judgment which we would have a hard time understanding without such language. God is not vengeful or hateful. He does not contradict his own word, where he calls both of those sins.

Again your "To use your logic" is inappropriate and again is a mixture of apples and oranges. Never is "murderer" or "abortion" or "genocide" or etc. EVER applied to God as anthropormorphic words.

The action is. God commanded the killing of the Canaanites. God commanded that all in Jericho (except Rahab) be destroyed:

Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
--murder, genocide, abortion? What else would you call it? Do you need other examples? There are many.
What did God do to the land of Egypt and the people of Egypt through the hand of Moses? The plague of the first-born? Abortion? Did they deserve it? Or was this all part of God's justice on a nation that had turned its back on God.
But you look at it as if God is a hate-filled God, who hated infants born to the Egyptians. No, he loved them, as he loved all the Egyptians. Love and justice go together. They are not separated.

Furthermore, your analogy is inappropriate as it depends not only upon YOUR INTEPRETATION of actions to fit those terms but such an interpretation also depends upon something you do not believe and that is God is responsible for sin as all those terms describe SINS.

God is a moral being not an immoral being.

You cannot deny that such MORAL terms as "hate" and "anger" and "wrath" are directly attributed in Scripture to God's NATURE as well as His ACTIONS toward SIN and SINNERS because we have documented that fact.

That is the trouble. They are not documented in Scripture. The words are used, but God is not a hateful God as you describe him to be. The words describe his justice. God is also described with wings, eyes that run to and fro; he has feet; Moses saw his "hinder parts." But Jesus clearly said to the Samaritan woman in John 4:24:

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

You cannot attribute them as anthropormorphisms because they are not PHYSICAL but MORAL attributes and if nothing conveyed has any realistic basis in the MORAL nature of God then it is a vain argument to even suggest they are anthropormorphic expressions.

Moral attributes can be described otherwise. Furthermore, words change meaning. Both wrath and anger are used in the Bible. However what we understand as anger is not what God defines as anger. God is not an angry God. That is against his nature. In fact as the Bible defines it, anger is sin. If Jesus had struck out in anger he would have sinned. The first thing people do is point to the incident at the Temple--the cleansing of the Temple, where the tables of the money-changers were overthrown. Was Christ angry? Let me ask it this way? Did Jesus at any time lose his temper? The answer is no. At no time did Christ lose control of his emotions. He was always in control of his emotions. We often define anger as out of control. But Christ wasn't out of control. His wasn't out of control or angry as we define anger. God doesn't get angry as we define anger. Much of the problem lies in the words that describe the emotions we have. God isn't full of emotions. He isn't moody. He is perfectly under control all the time.

You simply do not understand justified "anger" that would take the form of "vengeance" toward people that results in ETERNAL AGONY and MISERY.

No anger is justified. Anger is sin.

That is WRATH, and wrath cannot be separated from HATRED.

Hatred and wrath are very much different. Hatred is the opposite of love; if not the absence of love. Wrath is the outpouring of God's justice.

This is very simple to prove by asking you a simple question - "Can God HATE sin?"

Man is told to hate the sin, but to love the sinner. Why do you think this principle is taught to Christians, followers of Christ?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nevertheless they describe an aspect of God's judgment which we would have a hard time understanding without such language. God is not vengeful or hateful. He does not contradict his own word, where he calls both of those sins.

You are confusing "vengeful" with veangance and "hateful" with "hate" and they are not the same. What you are referring to are the abuses.

The action is. God commanded the killing of the Canaanites. God commanded that all in Jericho (except Rahab) be destroyed:

Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
--murder, genocide, abortion? What else would you call it?

The Scriptures are very clear about these things that it was JUDICIAL JUSTICE as God waited until the fullness of their sins came and used Israel to carry out JUST and JUDICIAL wrath of God upon sin and sinners. God often used other nations as instruments of DIVINE JUSTICE upon those for whom He was very longsuffering and gave plenty of time to repent.

Do you need other examples? There are many.
What did God do to the land of Egypt and the people of Egypt through the hand of Moses? The plague of the first-born? Abortion? Did they deserve it? Or was this all part of God's justice on a nation that had turned its back on God.
But you look at it as if God is a hate-filled God, who hated infants born to the Egyptians. No, he loved them, as he loved all the Egyptians. Love and justice go together. They are not separated.

God is a moral being not an immoral being.

That is the trouble. They are not documented in Scripture. The words are used, but God is not a hateful God as you describe him to be.

Again, you use terms that describe ABUSE and SIN rather than terms of JUST WRATH, JUST ANGER, JUST HATRED, JUST VENGEANCE. I have never used the terms "hateful" and "vengeful" to describe God - those are your terms and they are wrong. However, JUST HATRED is no more condemned in God than God condemns it in His people.

God is not an angry God. That is against his nature. In fact as the Bible defines it, anger is sin. If Jesus had struck out in anger he would have sinned. The first thing people do is point to the incident at the Temple--the cleansing of the Temple, where the tables of the money-changers were overthrown. Was Christ angry? Let me ask it this way? Did Jesus at any time lose his temper? The answer is no. At no time did Christ lose control of his emotions. He was always in control of his emotions. We often define anger as out of control. But Christ wasn't out of control. His wasn't out of control or angry as we define anger. God doesn't get angry as we define anger. Much of the problem lies in the words that describe the emotions we have. God isn't full of emotions. He isn't moody. He is perfectly under control all the time.

So you admit that one can HATE without being "hateful" and one can be ANGRY without "losing control"??? One can carry out just vengeance without being "vengeful." Thus just anger is not sin as Jesus defines "murder" in Matthew 5 to be angry "without a cause" whereas Just anger has a just cause.

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

God's anger is always just. God's vengeance is always Just. God's hate is always just. God's wrath is always just - never out of control always "according to" justice and never too much or too little.

It is RIGHTEOUS for God to HATE sin and to manifest that HATRED for sin in JUST MEASURE OF WRATH AT SINNERS. Indeed it would be UNLOVING of God not to HATE sin as well as the sinners UNLESS there was a JUST basis for him to TURN HIS RIGHTEOUS WRATH away from them. I submit to you the ONLY just basis is REDEMPTION and SATISFACTION of sin for His elect. There is no love of God OUTSIDE of Christ as John the Baptist clearly states in John 3:36 and there is no REDEMPTIVE love of God but IN CHRIST.

 

[DHK]

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

You emphasize the one phrase here.
So if I have a cause (e.g. he gets on my nerves), then my anger is just or it is not sin? It is only if it is "without a cause" that will put one in danger...
Is this what you believe Christ was teaching?
Truthfully, I think we always can give cause or a reason for anger.
It may not be just, but it will be a cause.

 

[RAdam]

You emphasize the one phrase here.
So if I have a cause (e.g. he gets on my nerves), then my anger is just or it is not sin? It is only if it is "without a cause" that will put one in danger...
Is this what you believe Christ was teaching?
Truthfully, I think we always can give cause or a reason for anger.
It may not be just, but it will be a cause.

Christ was clearly teaching that being angry without having a just cause is sin. There was in incident at which He looked on those about Him with anger. He had just cause to do so because they were being hypocrites. If it isn't ok to be angry with someone while having just cause to be so, Christ sinned. Obviously, that would be a big problem.

 

[RAdam]

God hates the wicked and them that love violence. The bible clearly states that. You write that off because it doesn't fit your image of God, but you are writing off clear language from the bible.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You emphasize the one phrase here.
So if I have a cause (e.g. he gets on my nerves), then my anger is just or it is not sin? It is only if it is "without a cause" that will put one in danger...
Is this what you believe Christ was teaching?
Truthfully, I think we always can give cause or a reason for anger.
It may not be just, but it will be a cause.

There is a vast difference between any cause and a JUST cause. God's anger is always JUST. Jesus was certainly angry on occassions and it was JUST anger - indignant wrath.

Mr 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

De 6:15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

De 29:28 And the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.

De 32:22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Again, God cannot love sin. God can only love either that which is INTRISICALLY good by nature or that which is good by redemption. Nothing UNHOLY can be embraced by God's love as love rejoices in truth not in unrighteousness. Satan, demons and fallen unredeemed men are the JUST and PROPER objects of His holy hatred, wrath and eternal vengence. Outside of Christ there is only the wrath of God (Jh. 3:36). Only those chosen "in Christ" before the foundation of the world through the redemption that is "in Christ" are objects of His redemptive love. It is only due to His redemptive love "in Christ" that God can show benevolent love toward the wicked because wrath is delayed as it is through the wicked that God's elect are yet to come through as far as natural birth and are to be blessed as far as temporal blessings. Hence, God's benevolent love toward the wicked is due solely to His redemptive love for His elect as He works all things "according to His purpose" for their good (Rom. 8:28-31). In regard to the potential wickedness they would do if allowed, God restrains (Psa. 76:10).


20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[DHK]

Again, God cannot love sin. God can only love either that which is INTRISICALLY good by nature

I never said God could love sin. Quite the opposite. As we are taught: hate the sin but love the sinner I believe God does. We do because we are Christians and follow Christ (God), who does the same.
But God does not and cannot hate those whom he loves. He loves the world (people), for whom he died. He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. He is our propitiation, but not for us only, but for the sins of the whole world. That shows love toward the whole world--not hate. He said: love your enemies. In him there is no hate. There cannot be hatred for any human. God is a God of love; the very essence of love. It is impossible for him to hate the creation which he himself called very good. Though it be marred by sin, his love extends to all. That does not mean all are saved.

The rich young ruler came to Jesus. Though he went away not trusting Christ, Christ said: And he beholding him, loved him. He loved the loveless, even those on their way to hell. He looked down on the Roman soldiers and in love cried out to the Father to forgive them. There was nothing but love there. A hatred for sin yes; but a love for those that crucified him. Paul showed that same example:

Romans 9:1-3 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
--How do we understand the man who could wish that he could take his place in hell in order that the ones that put the nails in the hands of Jesus could go to heaven. You say he must have hate. No, he loved them instead.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
--No hatred here either; only love.

I find your view of God very poor if not pitiful.

 

[RAdam]

Paul is not wishing himself into hell. The word here used for accursed gives the sense of a religious ban, like an excommunication. In other words, he could wish himself accursed from Christ in this life for their sake.

The rich young ruler is one of God's elect, but loved his riches too much. He missed out on much by trusting in riches, but he couldn't be separated from the love of Christ eternally.

 

[DHK]

Paul is not wishing himself into hell. The word here used for accursed gives the sense of a religious ban, like an excommunication. In other words, he could wish himself accursed from Christ in this life for their sake.

The rich young ruler is one of God's elect, but loved his riches too much. He missed out on much by trusting in riches, but he couldn't be separated from the love of Christ eternally.

The rich young ruler is by no means one of God's elect. Christ makes the application which makes that clear.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
He was on his way to hell. He would rather trust in his riches than trust in Christ.

Rationalizing these scriptures away won't salve anyone's conscience.

 

[RAdam]

He was loved by Jesus Christ. Paul said there is absolutely nothing that can separate one from the love of God. That's not a rationalization of those scriptures, it is comparing scripture with scripture. That man didn't obey Christ, but he was still one of God's elect.

 

[DHK]

He was loved by Jesus Christ. Paul said there is absolutely nothing that can separate one from the love of God. That's not a rationalization of those scriptures, it is comparing scripture with scripture. That man didn't obey Christ, but he was still one of God's elect.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

He is speaking to believers and believers only. This doesn't include the unsaved. Please put Scripture into its context.

 

[RAdam]

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

He is speaking to believers and believers only. This doesn't include the unsaved. Please put Scripture into its context.

You want to play the context game in Romans 8? Fabulous. Let's trace the us back in the context.

Let's start at verse 28, although we could go back further than that.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: whom he called, them he also justified: whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we say these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long: we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerers though him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Ah yes, one of my favorite passages. There are things here that are beyond dispute. First, the us are God's elect, foreknown by God, predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ so that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. These people are then, in consequence of this, called, justified, and eventually shall be glorified. They are the "us all" God delivered up Jesus for and the ones loved by Jesus. They are the ones God justifies, and are the ones Christ died for, rose for, and now makes intercession for. They are the ones for whom no charge can be laid because Christ died for them and God justified them. They are the called according to His purpose. They are the ones from whom noone and nothing can separate from God's love. They are more than conquerers through Jesus who loved them. That's the us.

Read that passage and notice the theme. These people are loved by God. According to you, that's no big deal. After all, God's loves the wicked who are burning in hell right now too. But look at the exaltation Paul applies to God's love. He says that through the one who loved us we are more than conquerers. He says there is no separation from that love. He says that because Christ died for us, and God delivered Him up for us, we can't be separated. This is talking about God's elect. Those are the ones God loves. It was that love that moved everything: election, predestination, redemption, calling, justification, and glorification. God would not suffer even one He loves to be separated from Him.

 

[DHK]

So what is your point RAdam? Every believer knows and understands about the love of God far more than the unbeliever. In fact he experiences it. This is what Paul is writing about. What has that got to do with the fact that God also loves loves the unbeliever who has not experienced the love of God. Does that mean that God does not love him. God loved me before I was saved. He loves me now, even after I am saved. Praise God for his unending love. If he had no love for me I would not be saved today. I know of no preacher that doesn't preach of the love of God to the unsaved. But you must preach about the hatred of God to the unsaved.

What do you say to a congregation of the unsaved. You are the enemies of God, and God hates you!!! You have a terrible message and a terrible view of God.

 

[RAdam]

The problem is you have the wrong audience pegged here. Paul is talking about the elect. You don't become elect when you are saved. You are saved because you are elect. God loves the elect. There is no verse of condition found in that passage of scripture I just quoted for man to accomplish. Paul says the us there were chosen by God, predestinated to salvation, and because of this the same number chosen shall be called, justified, and glorified. This people, the us all God delivered His Son up for, are the objects of His love and will never be separated from that love. That means that the rich young ruler, an object of God's love which shows that he is elect, is in heaven right now. Why? Because there is no separation from the love of God. God's elect cannot be separated. He was disobedient, thus he missed out on many blessings. But, nothing can separate from the love of God. That's the beauty of everlasting love. If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: He cannot deny Himself.

 

[DHK]

That means that the rich young ruler, an object of God's love which shows that he is elect, is in heaven right now. Why? Because there is no separation from the love of God. God's elect cannot be separated. He was disobedient, thus he missed out on many blessings. But, nothing can separate from the love of God. That's the beauty of everlasting love. If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: He cannot deny Himself.

Why are you trying to insert Romans 8 into Mark 10. The two have nothing to do with each other. You ignore context. Forget about Romans 8. Here is the context of Mark 10:

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
--Note, Jesus loved him!

Mark 10:22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
--Note, the rejection of Christ because of his riches.

Note the application of Christ:
Mark 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

And again:
Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

This man was as lost as the devil himself. He was not one of the elect. He had just rejected Christ. Christ said he would not enter into the kingdom of God. And yet he loved him anyway.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So there is nothing special about me, but thankfully I had the sense enough to avail myself of the love of God. If I had not, I would have burned in hell for all eternity. Wow, and I thought I should be praising Jesus Christ for saving me, when in reality, if you are right, I should be thanking myself. After all, if I hadn't availed myself of God's love then I would've perished. Thanks for clearing that up.

Clearly, your idea of salvation is not in line with the bible. Yes, there is nothing special about me. I've often wondered why God would love such a worthless sinner as I. I was a worthless, dead sinner, who hated God and deserved eternal punishment. Praise God for His great love wherewith He loved me even when I was dead in sins and sent His Son into the world to die for me. Praise God for sending His Spirit to regenerate me. I didn't avail myself of the love of God, God came in and sovereignly changed my heart, taught me to deny ungodliness and wordly lusts and instead love Him and keep His commandments. Praise God for sending me the gospel which brought life and immortality to light, opening my eyes to what things God has done for me.

You can call me a hyper-calvinist if you want to, but I never claimed to be a calvinist. I claim to simply believe what the bible teaches.

Yes God changed your heart and you were open. Not all are open the same action of God which gives you grace hardens peoples hearts who are at odds with God and want to be seperate from God. If pharoah had an open heart he would have repented as it was he didn't and therefore it became harden. The same with you save that you were open. And that is in line with the scrioptures else it would be in vain preaching the gospel of Christ.

 

[RAdam]

You fail to realize that the reason I believed in Christ when preached to was because God had already changed my heart and given the faith whereby I could believe. I wasn't open, I was regenerated by the power of God. Had He left me in my sins, I wouldn't have believed.

 

[RAdam]

Why are you trying to insert Romans 8 into Mark 10. The two have nothing to do with each other. You ignore context. Forget about Romans 8. Here is the context of Mark 10:

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
--Note, Jesus loved him!

Mark 10:22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
--Note, the rejection of Christ because of his riches.

Note the application of Christ:
Mark 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

And again:
Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

This man was as lost as the devil himself. He was not one of the elect. He had just rejected Christ. Christ said he would not enter into the kingdom of God. And yet he loved him anyway.

They asked who could be saved. He said with me it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

You also misunderstand the kingdom of God. He didn't enter the kingdom of God that day. He loved his riches too much. The kingdom of God is not just eternal heaven, but also encompases the gospel church here in time.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You fail to realize that the reason I believed in Christ when preached to was because God had already changed my heart and given the faith whereby I could believe. I wasn't open, I was regenerated by the power of God. Had He left me in my sins, I wouldn't have believed.

What you fail to understand is that the same action that God uses to change your heart hardens the heart of others.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Purgatory has NOTHING to do with 'all being saved'. YEESH! That is as bad as saying that Purgatory is a 'second chance' to be saved.

Lori...

I came out of Catholicism after I was born of the Spirit. You cant fool me.

YES...the ridiculous Catholic doctrine "purgatory" has to do with being saved.

It is a complete lie.


God have mercy.


AiC